Imágenes de páginas

confused him neither with Father nor Son," was God, the Spirit of God and of Christ. They had definitely different experience of each, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But it goes without saying that these Jewish followers of Jesus had not suddenly come to believe in three gods. Of course, all these experiences, these influences, manifestations, revelations, were of one ineffable God. In short they conceived of and experienced God in three ways-as Father, God the Creator, the Source of all things; as Son, Jesus Christ, Lord and Leader, Captain of their salvation and friend of their souls, the Head also of the body which they themselves constituted and called the Church; and as Holy Ghost, the divine Spirit, Inspirer, Strengthener, Comforter, who dwelt in their hearts.

Here we have the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity, the data so to speak upon which the Church, divinely guided as they and we believe, had to go in stating for her children in successive generations what must be believed about the nature of God; none to be neglected, unrecognized, disparaged. In their concept of eternity all their ideas of divinity centered in ONE, the Godhead; but in their concept of time-that is, of the divine in relation to the human-their ideas of divinity centered in THREE, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

One suspects that were the intellectual work of the Catholic Church, such as for example crystalized in the doctrine of the Trinity, to be undertaken afresh, and were the experience of the Apostolic Christians to be recorded anew in technical language for the safe-guarding of the vital truth of that experience and for its handing on from age to age, we would get again just what has already been entrusted to us by the Churchthe exact equivalents of the Creeds. And in making this statement the fact that we believe that work to have been divinely

** It would be incredible that the nice distinctions St. Paul, for example, continuously makes could spring from anything but a consistent differentiation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his settled belief. The same can be said of all New Testament writers, and of their reports of our Lord's own words, as has been demonstrated a thousand times.

guided is entirely ignored. Eliminating for the sake of argument our confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit in formulating belief, it is difficult to see what other dogmatic statement could have been deduced from the data at hand-the age-long Jewish monotheism, the wonderful companying with Jesus, the vivd experience of Pentecost and the power in which henceforth the Apostles worked and preached and baptized.

It would be a work of superogation to indicate again how successive heretical "explanations" of the Trinity in the past have failed to do justice, not merely to the Catholic dogma (that is obvious), but to the data they attempted to account for. And it is doubtful if those hoary heretical controversies have nowadays any practical value. We are grown so away from the phraseology then current and even popularly understood (one recalls riots in connection with the word ovμoboLoy) that those musty debates no longer illuminate the truth, and it is to be hoped that more writers of theological treatises will share this opinion. A new apologetic is needed, and as a sample of the sort that has at least begun to be provided it is a pleasure to refer to Professor Drown's recent The Apostles' Creed To-day. I am far from feeling that Dr. Drown make the most of his case, but the manner in which he conducts it leaves little to be desired. After all the Church makes little of temporary attacks on her position, and certainly in the two august creeds that our part of the Church regards as sufficient, she contents herself with uttering the great facts of her experience of God and of the revelation through the Lord. And that she is wise in doing so is sufficiently attested by the collapse of Liberal Criticism (in the sectarian sense of that term) and the subtle but merciless destruction of the "Historical Jesus" in the very land where within a century he was created.

Men always respond to a vigorous, fresh, and clear preaching of the faith; and one ventures to believe that is because the spiritually illuminated respond to spiritual truth just as the logical mind welcomes and assimilates intellectual truth. The history of old heresies is singularly dull. A heresy itself soon loses inspiration after the one-sided genius who develops

it passes from the scene. It is only at the moment of birth that its freshness or novelty wins sympathy and support.

The Christian doctrine of God is receiving unexpected illumination in an unlikely quarter at the present time. Those of us who have been reading Mr. H. G. Wells' clever books for the past ten years or so have been feeling strongly that he was on his way to be converted; therefore we were not surprised when he announced that fact in his Mr. Britling sees it through, and his God the Invisible King; but Mr. Wells, always original, instead of adapting his conversion to Christianity, promptly swept the entire Christian tradition into the scrapheap. Conscious only of the human elements in it, he rejected it in toto, and set about to construct a brand new theology of his own. And with what result? First, we have him acknowledging in the eternal background the incomprehensible source of all things; that which we call the Creator, he prefers to call the Veiled Being. Then next he discovers God, the invisible King, the Leader, the Captain, the exemplar of heroic and splendid virtue. For all Mr. Wells' glowing rhetoric his figure seems rather unsubstantial because it is devoid of background, has no roots in history, or, as we would say, has not been "revealed." But also, as if aware that substance of some sort must be given him, Mr. Wells also conceives him,-nay, knows him, as inspirer of goodness, truth, bravery, beauty, all the things that Mr. Wells particularly likes. Now, if we put out of our minds Mr. Wells' rather silly and very superficial attack on scholastic theology, if we admit and pass over the fact that he entirely neglects the tremendous rôle God must play as saviour in this world of sin and horror, and if we do see that he has created his God in his own image, nevertheless, I think we must strongly feel that essentially he thinks of God, despite all his protests, in a trinitarian fashion. His Veiled Being, his bright invisible Friend, and his Comrade of the soul, are very analogous to our own conception of God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Logically developed, Mr. Wells' new religion would become a lop-sided Catholicism, a Catholicism stripped of the imagery, the rapt seraphic fire of the Prophets, of the Gos

pels and their beautiful story of Jesus, of the Church and its heroic history under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; stripped, that is to say, of all the poetry and tradition and philosophy that give Christianity historic value, intellectual life and colour, and spiritual beauty and substance. Discount the mud-throwing and the stupid ignorance of history evident on every page, Mr. Wells' God the Invisible King is an extraordinary commentary on the way in which the divine spirit works on the human mind; a vivid illustration of how, humanely speaking, the dogma of the Trinity crystalized; and infinitely more, by its manifest inadequacies, it is a testimony to the divine authority of the Catholic doctrine of God.

It is in current heresies that we will find indirect confirmations of Christian dogma. And if they are to be refuted by sound and scholarly argument, they must first be examined with a genuine desire to understand them. But the danger to faith lies not so much in frank attack from without the fold as from within, in the undermining on the part of those within who, while using traditional terminology, under the pretense of simplifying the definite ideas it conveys explain them away. We need a new apologetic which will explain the terms in popular language for the sake of preserving and propogating the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity is but the first of many dogmas that requires such exposition.

The Poetry of Christina Rossetti



OW beautiful a thing to be no more than five years old," wrote Christina Rossetti of one of her nieces. "How beautiful a thing," some admirer of Miss Rossetti's verses might say, "to be thus perpetually childlike in spirit." Poets have a way, sometimes, of seeming to defy the process of the years, carrying with them, often into old age, the simplicity and the spontaneous gentleness of the young child. It was so with William Blake; it was so, within much shorter limits, of the boy Chatterton; it was so with Christina Rossetti. Such childlikeness of spirit as is found in these authors is not always recognized as a high literary quality, and to write of it is no easy task. It is to recommend the obvious— though not the obviously popular-and it is to incur, perhaps, the charge of recommending a kind of beauty that may safely be left to take care of itself. What has the critic to do with simplicity? It is his business to analyze; and simplicity and gentleness, being elemental qualities, are not susceptible of analysis and do not repay the student of literary origins. In the case of Miss Rossetti simplicity is linked with an exalted spirit of renunciation and an abnegation of self that is peculiarly difficult of appreciation in an age that has consistently sought individualism in life and art. To dwell on its charm is like pointing out the beauty of a November landscape to one who has known only the gaudier charms of May and October. In this day of noisy art, when poets are splashing their canvases with emerald and scarlet, when repose has been forgotten and the whole creative realm is generally anarchic, it is no simple task to speak of the beauty of quiet tones and of the joy of a noble conformity to what an earlier generation believed to have been proved historically best. It is to seek peace and ensue it.

Even in her own day Christina Rossetti was not always loved for what was most characteristic of her genius. She suffered somewhat, I imagine, from the connection of her name with that of her brother and from her early identification with the

« AnteriorContinuar »